Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 04:29:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: kstewart@urx.com Cc: Marc van Woerkom <marc.vanwoerkom@science-factory.com>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: OT: overclocking and cool systems (Was: FreeBSD is being extremely slow..) Message-ID: <14763.33418.887544.359141@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <39AB1B53.91113A36@urx.com> References: <14762.54705.346152.495600@guru.mired.org> <39AAE9EC.DFD5E4E@urx.com> <14763.2428.985901.162062@guru.mired.org> <39AB1B53.91113A36@urx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kent Stewart writes: > Mike Meyer wrote: > > Kent Stewart writes: > > > Mike Meyer wrote: > > However, what I normally see are CPU speeds, which might be a > > different ball of wax. If you go from 66 to 100 FSB with 4x cpu > > multiplier and a 366MHz CPU, then the *CPU* clocked at 400MHz, which > > is right at 10%. > About 30 seconds after I hit the send button, I wanted to add a > comment agreeing with what you said. When they raise the speed of the > FSB, it is a real improvement but there are cards that don't work at > those odd speeds. Going from 500 to 550 with a change of cpu's is 10% > but because of the memory funnel, you won't see a %10 increase in > through put. Increase the FSB and you can. Is a 10% increase in > through put worth dropping the warranty, I doubt it unless you think > of the cpu as a throw away. Yeah, I noticed that. I think that the marketing drive towards faster CPU speeds has caused systems to be "unbalanced" in favor of CPU. We've gone from a situation a decade ago when the CPU and FSB clocks were identical, to a case where high-end CPUs run at 6x (or more?). So overclocking just the CPU buys you more where it does the least good. Overclocking the FSB raises the entire system, which does more good but increases the number of components you're overstressing. > > *) The exceptions are the guys doing liquid-cooled systems, and > > getting 2 or 3x. On the other hand, they admit they're doing it for > > hack value, and are spending more on the system than it would have > > cost to buy a system running at the resulting speed. > One of the prettiest computer's I ever used was a Cray 2 and it was > totally immersed in an inert fluorocarbon liquid. You would see > bubbles of gas from the section of the computer that was being used. Ever watch one being shut down? The fluorocarbon would flow out and into storage pillars - it was quite a sight. Personally, I preferred the older models, as you could get them in custom colors. The one I was sysadmin for at Berkeley (I had a Cray XMP-14 under my desk, and could reboot it at will - until it went production) was done in the school colors. They pulled two panels so they could show off the wiring to visitors, and only bought the clear panels I asked for after a VIP crashed it by actually touching the wiring. The one at Bell Labs was supposed to be a montage of the Chicago skyline and a bellmac-32 chip layout, but I never saw that one. <mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14763.33418.887544.359141>